As I See It Achives

This letter is in response to an editorial advocating the abolition of the estate tax in the Augusta Newspaper.

Let me get this straight. Your editorial of June 10^th said that once someone has paid tax on money no one else should have to pay tax on the same money. So if I make $ 100,000 and pay that amount to some one else for products or services they should not have to pay tax on it. Sounds like the end of the IRS to me. But wait….. that is not what you said. What you said was that if someone makes 300 million dollars and then leaves it to some one else that person should not have to pay taxes on it because the tax has already been paid. Remember that in your scenario the person who gets the money is not the one that paid the tax.

So by your theory working stiffs that earn money should pay tax but some one fortunate enough to do nothing to earn the money but just inherit the money should not have to pay tax. The folks that want to abolish welfare talk about rewarding people for not working. I guess its only the poor and needy that don’t get rewarded.

Considering that we have a tremendous National Debt that someone has to pay I guess you want the wage workers to pay it while those that live off the riches of their ancestors or returns from the stock market get richer still because they have no taxes to pay.

I too believe that in some cases the estate tax has imposed a burden on small business owners estates where only moderate wealth was involved. But the floor for the estate tax has been raised to $ 15,000,000. I believe folks with that kind of money can afford to pay taxes.

The title above is from an old parable that I am sure you are all familiar with. I believe it is a a n adequate warning to all working men and women to not be fooled by the Congressional Republicans sudden desire to “help” low wage workers.

In the process of trying to “Look Good” for the 06 Elections the Republicans in Congress are trying to pass a Minimum Wage increase. It would be enough of a sham if after 9 years they just passed a straight up wage increase. But this bill includes peanuts for workers and includes millions for the wealthy special interest.

In addition to reducing the Estate Tax substantially and giving tax breaks to timber barons, the bill also cuts wages in seven states for people who work for tips.

I did the math; the estate tax cut will benefit approximately 7,500 people and will amount to 26.8 Billion Dollars over a 10 year period. At a $2.35 increase, It would take a minimum wage worker 760 years to earn an amount equal to the estate tax break for the wealthiest among us.

Why is it that a party that claims it values hard work so reluctant to actually reward work but does everything in its power to reduce taxes on income that is received without work? They claim they are opposed to the Estate Tax because the tax has already been paid on it. Well the tax has already been paid on every dime we spend each day. That doesn’t mean the recipient gets away without paying tax. And think of this; if one man works for his Father and earns $30,000,000 he has to pay tax on that but the opponents of the Estate tax are saying if a man inherits $30,000,000 it should be tax free. See they want to reward sloth. Not work.

Same goes for Capital gains. Most middle class folks make the huge majority of their income by hard work and pay taxes on every dime but the party in power wants to reduce the taxes of those fortunate enough to have wealth they can invest and make their living on investments. Don’t get me wrong it is not without risk and effort to make your money on investments but it’s no where near as hard or as risky as hanging iron or swinging a hammer in 95degree heat or in the freezing rain.

Below is an article from an article published by the Economic Policy Institute that gives some details about the Minimum Wage farce:

The Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act of 2006, H.R. 5970, which passed the House on July 29, raises the minimum wage for most employees. But for many employees in seven states, H.R. 5970 means a wage cut. Section 402 of the bill strikes down state laws that require employers to pay a full minimum wage without relying on tips from customers to reach the minimum level.¹ States that have those laws will see the minimum wage for tipped employees fall as much as $5.50 per hour.

Seven states—Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington—exclude, in the words of H.R. 5970, “ all of a tipped employee's tips from being considered as wages in determining if such tipped employee has been paid the applicable minimum wage rate.” According to Section 402, therefore, the “minimum wage rate provisions” of those state laws may not be enforced “with respect to tipped employees.” Tipped employees (defined as any employee who earns more than $30 per month in tips) would be left without any minimum wage protection under state law in those seven states.

In most cases, the tipped employees would be subject to the federal minimum wage law, which allows employers to pay as little as $2.13 an hour and to rely on customers’ tips to make up the rest of the $5.15 minimum wage. This is known as a “tip credit.” Thus, in Washington, tipped employees would see their minimum wage cut from its current $7.63 an hour (plus tips) to $5.15 an hour (including tips). Employers would see their minimum wage obligation to tipped employees fall by $5.50 an hour—from $7.63 an hour to $2.13 an hour (assuming $3.02 in customer tips). For example, an employee who is currently paid the state minimum wage of $7.63 an hour and receives $3.02 in tips earns a total of $10.65 per hour. Under the House-passed bill, the employer would be permitted to pay only $2.13 an hour and count the customers’ tips to make up the rest of the $5.15 federal minimum wage. The employee would lose $5.50 per hour in pay.

Nationwide, more than 5 million employees work in occupations where tips are common, including taxi drivers, food and beverage servers, hotel porters and housekeepers, manicurists, and hair stylists, to name a few.

H.R. 5970 is the first time in history that the federal government has acted to put a ceiling on minimum wage levels, rather than establishing a national floor from which the states can make improvements. Back to Index

The article below was written by Jere Brassell of Southern Benefit Administrators shortly after his Company Headquarters was struck by a severe tornado. I appreciate Jere for writing it and giving us permission to use it. I think it is important to know that we have friends and supporters that are willing to voice an appreciation for organized labor.

Certain seminal events take place in each of our lives that we remember vividly, while others fade from our memory with time. With great clarity I recall a day in late 1954 when I was only nine years old that will be forever etched in my mind. That was the day I traveled with my father in a car driven by my cousin (we did not own a car) to “pay” for my youngest brother, Dewey.

Dewey was born on November 19, 1954 and before he could come home from the hospital he had to be “paid” for because there was no health insurance to cover his birth. In the absence of such coverage, my father had saved 500 half dollars during the period between my brother Randall’s birth in 1949 and Dewey’s in 1954. This was no small task given our father’s job descriptions. You see, at age 64 and with a sixth son on the way, and with no accrued retirement benefit other than a modest one from Social Security and a nominal Veterans benefit for service during World War I, he had taken a second job as a night watchman at an automobile salvage yard to supplement his daytime salary as a dyer of socks at a local hosiery mill, a job he held for about four decades. Even with this extra income, his total weekly earnings did not exceed perhaps $60 to $65, an amount that was not conducive to the purchase of health coverage and a retirement annuity. He was, however, able to save $250 to “buy” Dewey. I remember distinctly delivering a bag of 250 half dollars to the obstetrician, followed by a similar delivery to the hospital.

As a nine year old I gave little thought to what all of this meant. I certainly wasn’t aware in 1954 that during that same year the Internal Revenue Code had been revised to give meaning to certain provisions of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (the Taft-Hartley Act) by exempting from taxation for the first time plans established by unions and employers signatory to collective bargaining agreements for the purpose of providing pensions and group health coverage to unionized workers and their families.

I did not realize at the time, of course, the impact these two closely timed developments would have upon our country and upon me personally. While organized labor had already had a very positive effect on the economic growth of America, and certainly in making the families of working men and women more comfortable financially, especially following World War II, it was the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act and the change in the Internal Revenue Code that put some real teeth into the collective bargaining process and, for the first time, made the establishment of health and pension plans attractive to employers.

Not having grown up in a “union” family, I did not know what to expect when on January 4, 1971 I took a job as a third party administrator and employee benefits consultant for a company serving only union-sponsored plans. Until that time I had given little, if any, thought to the role of unions in our society and had never understood their place in shaping so many of the blessings and privileges working people enjoy today. In the absence of organized labor there would be no middle class America, no minimum wage (which has unfortunately eroded to a meaningless level), unsafe working conditions, little thought about the rights of workers, no forty hour work week, no financial security at retirement, no skilled labor pool, and no protection against soaring health care costs. In the construction industry, where so many of Southern Benefit’s clients are concentrated, union employers also have the benefit of a responsive referral system which supplies trained craftsmen to union construction sites with minimal notice.

Now, thirty-five years later, I have a deep-seated appreciation for the beneficial effect of unions in our society. I have been privileged to be part of a system that

over that time has provided financial security to countless thousands of families through the payment of billions of dollars in retirement and health benefits. The collective bargaining process has been responsible for this and even those workers employed by non-unionized employers have benefited from the work of union representatives.

In today’s society it would be virtually impossible for a family to save sufficient sums to meet their health care needs, especially with the advances in medical technology we enjoy today. A child-birth can easily cost six to twelve months of a person’s salary, not the three or four weeks of a two-job income it cost my father in 1954. Dozens of premature babies are born in this country every day. Most of them thrive and live normal lives, whereas in 1954 most of them would have died at birth. Were it not for the protection afforded by health care coverage negotiated initially by unions, saving these babies would be impossible because the three to five years of the average person’s salary required to treat these newborns simply would not be available.

The litany of positive influences organized labor has had upon America are simply too numerous to list in this brief article, but in addition to those noted above, there are two that must be mentioned in view of the April 7 tornado that brought Southern Benefit to a standstill -- quality workmanship and loyalty. ~~Please be sure to read the opening article in this~~ ~~SBAInsider~~ ~~about the tornado.~~ Were it not for the decision in 1998 to use union contractors to build our corporate headquarters, it is likely some of our employees would be severely injured or dead at this point and the building would have been destroyed. What really hammered home the value of a relationship with organized labor, however, was the response of people like Mike Pfieffer of Industrial Contractors and Ms. Jamie Lewis of Glass Contractors, both union contractors, following the storm. Their support and friendship will never be forgotten by the Southern Benefit family.

I’ve about had it with the “cup is half empty” editorials of the last few weeks (not just the AJC many other newspapers are singing the same song). The Atlanta Journal Constitution's Jim Wooten’s backhanded “compliment” to leaders of industrial unions suggests that they must be strong and take the heat for acquiescing to employers demands for lower wages and fewer benefits. This is the same zero sum reasoning that so many employed to denounce increasing the minimum wage.

People are always writing about the American Spirit and the American Dream as what sets us apart from the rest of the world, but then they go on to propose that we become like the rest of the world. That we learn to accept the “fact” that we can not maintain decent wages and healthcare benefits and retirement and that we must compete with the low wage workers around the world. I have never seen or heard not even from the most so called liberal media a suggestion that U.S. CEOs or CFOs should accept compensation packages similar to third world nations. We can not continue to be the greatest economic engine the world has ever known by taking money out of consumer’s pockets. Henry Ford understood that workers are also consumers and if you put more money in workers pockets you put more money into the economy. But for the past twenty years or so the prevailing economic theory seems to be if you put more money in the pockets of the wealthy they will invest it to crate new jobs. They have created new jobs in India, China, Pakistan and numerous other low wage Countries and at home in low wage service sector employment. Meanwhile Middle America is being squeezed to work for less, pay more for health care and bear all the risk for their retirement or to work until they die.

Except when they are talking about wages most conservatives will argue strongly that the US Economy is not a zero sum game. They will argue that giving millionaires tax breaks and huge salaries with multi million dollar increases each year is good for the Nation and will” grow” the economy but paying a worker $ 1.00 more per hour will drive the economy into the ground.

If we compete with third world nations in terms of compensation for the average worker we will have forfeited the American Dream for generations to come. We can not possibly maintain a booming economy and economic leadership in the world by forcing working men and women to take less and less and less. This Nation grew to be a great Nation and economic powerhouse because we had the largest middle class in the world. Before we entered that golden age the cup is half full folks were preaching their message that if workers were paid more that employers would hire less and the economy would collapse. To some extent that was true, as wages rose employers looked for ways to do more with fewer people so productivity rose, profits rose, capacity was added, wages increase more and purchasing power increased creating more demand and more capacity was built creating a growing and expanding economy.

The reason the current economic model is not producing the same desirable results is that as productivity increased instead of improving wages or increasing capacity or modernizing to improve productivity companies went on buying binges. They bought up their competitors instead of learning to compete smarter or they paid executives huge amount s of money and invested in capacity over seas taking the revenue from increased productivity out to the cycle of growth. The only thing sustaining our current economic growth is the growth of credit. And as all of us that have ever headed a household know sooner or later the bill comes due. When we had a robust manufacturing and producing economy we could always count on generating the wealth to pay off the debt. Today we are borrowing to pay off past debt and hoping to be able to borrow more to pay off current debt. That’s another thing most of us know,” you can’t borrow yourself out of debt.” This is a quote from a November 17^th article in the New York Times titled, “Made in U.S., Shunned in China”, “Chinese officials increasingly try to deflect criticism by emphasizing America's growing dependence on borrowing from the world. That borrowing pays for a higher level of consumption than America's economic output would otherwise sustain.”

We must build the US economy by building US productive capacity. We can not build a great economy based solely on service and debt and an ever decreasing standard of living for U.S. workers.

So to all you naysayers out there that think we must stop dreaming the American Dream and start living the third world nightmare , I say,” get a grip”, study our history and dare to dream because it’s only by believing that we can do better; that we will do better.

Construction Workers lost the right to negotiate Project Labor Agreements on federally funded jobs

Stringent reporting requirements have been instituted for Union Organizations and officers.

The National Labor Relations Board has ruled that companies may restrict communication between employees even on their own time and away from the jobsite.

Workers rebuilding the storm ravaged Gulf Coast lost the prevailing wage (long enough for the largest contracts to be awarded). Don’t be fooled by the prevailing wage being reinstituted on November 15^th. The suspension was immediate; why wasn’t the resumption? Billions of contract dollars were awarded without the prevailing wage and millions or billions more will be awarded before the resumption of the prevailing wage requirement on November 15^,2005.

Meanwhile what has happened about the God, guts, guns and gay issues the President campaigned on and a lot of working men and women voted for?

Guts: we are in a War which the President appears to be unwilling to make the commitment to win or to withdraw. Under the heading of guts comes National Security; the US border is more porous today than ever and the President’s promise of amnesty and refusal to enforce immigration has caused a new flood of workers to come illegally into the USA. .

Guns: You can buy an assault weapon now but so can a lot of folks that want to hurt you.

Gays: No state had legalized gay marriage before Bush came into office. A few states have passed gay marriage bans but the Federal government has done zip. And the conservatives have control of the Presidency, the Senate, the US Congress, the majority of State Governors, the majority of State Legislatures and the majority of judges

So with all that control very few of the conservative issues have been resolved in favor of conservatives. And more interesting; they never will be resolved by this crowd. Those issues make good campaign fodder and gives good people reasons to vote against their own self interest and blindly allow the mortgaging of America's future to corporate America.

Meanwhile working men and women are bearing a larger share of the tax burden, good paying jobs are being replaced with low wage service sector jobs, good paying white collar jobs are being out sourced to foreign nations, Communist China has become one of America’s biggest trading partners and biggest owner of US debt. 6 million more people have slipped into poverty, about 8 million more have become uninsured and millions more have less health coverage than they did 5 years ago. Millions of workers lost huge sums in their defined contribution retirement plans and millions more have had their defined benefit retirement reduced because companies were allowed to foist their pension plans onto the taxpayers. People who make their living off their own or their ancestor’s investments are paying a much smaller amount of taxes while those who work for wages are paying more.

The filthy rich and their media pawns have managed to convince people that will be buried in a paupers grave that their families will have to pay a "Death Tax" when in reality most people don't personally know anyone rich enough to have to pay the Estate Tax which is the real name of the "Death Tax" It is only levied on estates of $1.5 Million or more.

Corporate profits have skyrocketed as more working stiffs feel the payday pinch. In 2001 we were paying about $1.15 a gallon for gasoline in Atlanta; now we are paying $ 2.35 and have paid as much as $ 3.49. In the 20 minutes it has taken me to write this far Exxon Mobile and three other large oil companies (are there any other kind?) have received $4,494,000 in profits (profits not income).

Every day we read about another Enron type accounting scandal. The values crowd is outing CIA Agents, changing the reasons we went to war, cutting healthcare benefits for kids and allowing corporations to rape and pillage the environment. The House Speaker was indicted and had to step down as Speaker. The Senate Majority Leader sold millions of stock in the family business just a few days before the stock tanked (lucky devil don’t you think?) Martha Stewart went to jail for a whole lot less.

If there is ever a time when working men and women should stand shoulder to shoulder and say, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not taking it anymore." this is it. I urge you to not be mislead by false promises. Look at the record.

It’s time for the Senate to Stop Nuclear Proliferation Posted by Charlie Key 4-29-05

The US Congress recently came to it’s senses and repealed unnecessary and wrongheaded rule changes governing the Ethics Committee. It is time for the Senate to stop the wrongheaded attempt to stop the filibuster (The Nuclear Option).

The President now and always has appointed Judges, Ambassadors, and Department Secretaries with the advice and consent of the US Senate. There is good and long standing reason for the filibuster rule in the Senate. Too many of us, including many in the current Senate seem to forget that the United States of America is a republic, not a democracy. Our Founding Fathers realized that to be a truly great Nation we must respect the ideas and rights of the minority and not just the majority. That’s the reason we have the First Amendment to protect the freedom of unpopular speech. Popular speech needs no such protection. The same goes for the filibuster. The filibuster has been used to help cool the passions of the moment so the wisdom of the ages would have a chance to prevail.

True it is very tempting when you are in the majority to want to get your way but two things are worth considering. One, You will not always be in the majority and will someday need the protections you are now trying to deny others. Two, Judges are appointed for a lifetime, not just for the period of timer when one party or the other is in control. It is not to much to ask that a judge be acceptable to at least 60 Senators or at least no so repugnant that 40 or more Senators object to their appointment.

The Senate has approved 206 of 216 Judges nominated by this President, that’s a lot more than were approved for the previous administration in a similar period of time. Democrats have shown their wiliness to confirm even some controversial candidates including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and many of the approved Judges.

If there is to be compromise it should be on the Nominees not the process. I don’t want the far right or the far left getting their nominees approved with a simple up or down vote. We have staffed the Courts of this Nation for almost 230 years by being willing to compromise and pick the best nominee for the Nation in the present and for the future.

All those folks screaming they don’t want activist judges will get just that if the process is compromised.

Think about it for a moment, if a Nominee cannot get the support of 60 or more US Senators are they really going to represent the best interest of this Nation and its history of looking out for the little guy.

CWA first-year Leadership School students are asked a pretty tough question: If you found yourself back in time, working in a Company town, living in Company-provided housing and buying almost everything from the Company store would you have the guts to try to form a Union, knowing that nothing protected you from almost certainly losing everything? It really made my blood run cold because I believe with my entire soul in the labor movement and even I had to pause. The Company was a monopoly and left you few choices. But here we are again.

Anyone at BellSouth who comes into any direct contact with our customers has likely heard the complaint about our "monopoly" over telecom. "You people have a stranglehold over my phone and that’s why you can [insert complaint here]." It was complaints like these that prompted the divestiture of AT&T so that now we really don't have a monopoly, but that ghost still haunts us.

Isn’t it funny how that ghost doesn't haunt Wal-Mart? Look at the facts: Wal-Mart's profits were bigger than Target, Sears, K Mart, JC Penney, Safeway and Kroger combined. Wal-Mart isn't just the world’s largest retailer; it is the world's largest Company. Think about that. How's that for a monopoly?

"People ask, 'How can it be bad for things to come into the U.S. cheaply? How can it be bad to have a bargain at Wal-Mart?' Sure, it's held inflation down, and it's great to have bargains," says Steve Dobbins. "But you can't buy anything if you're not employed. We are shopping ourselves out of jobs." He would know. Steve Dobbins is president and CEO of Carolina Mills, a 75-year-old North Carolina company that supplies thread, yarn, and textile finishing to apparel makers--half of which supply Wal-Mart. He has had to lay off nearly half of his employees and close 10 of his 17 factories. Wal-Mart makes no secret to its suppliers that they expect a lower cost year after year, despite the rise in production and supply costs. Wal-Mart has been a leader in encouraging businesses to move their operations overseas in order to cut labor costs.

But what about Wal-Mart's much touted "Buy American" campaign? Try this on for size: before Wal-Mart began putting the squeeze on American apparel manufacturers, Levi Strauss produced the icon of American clothing: blue jeans. Today, Levi Strauss doesn't make any clothing at all. It distributes clothing made in Mexico and Asia with Levi labels attached. Companies that resist Wal-Mart's insistence on a lower price pay the ultimate price. Rubbermaid had to raise prices when the price of resin skyrocketed. Resin is a major component of nearly all its products. WalMart responded by pulling nearly all those products from its shelves. Rubbermaid had to close its original factory and the parts were sold off to Chinese companies. 1,000 people lost their jobs from the company that Fortune magazine named 1994's Most Admired Company.

You would think this would be big news and people would be coming out of the woodwork from these companies that are being squeezed out of the marketplace. But there is too much fear against retaliation by Wal-Mart. "You won't hear anything negative from most people," says Paul Kelly, founder of Silvermine Consulting Group, a company that helps businesses work more effectively with retailers. "It would be committing suicide. If Wal-Mart takes something the wrong way, it's like Saddam Hussein. You just don't want to piss them off."

Like "Saddam Hussein"? But Wal-Mart is supposed to this all-American store. If you think that’s harsh, think about this: Five American television manufacturers filed suit against a Chinese television manufacturer for "dumping" high-end TVs in America for prices lower than free-market cost in violation of trade agreements. Wal-Mart testified on behalf of the Chinese at the hearing. A.J. Davis, the IUE local vice president from Sanyo’s plant in Arkansas that produces for Wal-Mart said in testimony "the average seniority in my plant is 37 years. We had 624 workers in 2002. We now have 391. This is the Mississippi Delta. There are no jobs here. It’s working at Sanyo or welfare." Tom Hopson, President and CEO of Five-Rivers Electric, the last American TV manufacturer, also testified at the preliminary hearing. Five-Rivers declared bankruptcy in late October 2004.

This sad tale doesn't end there. Very often these laid-off workers have no choice but to find other jobs in the only place available in their wrecked communities: Wal-Mart. Most of the people at Wal-Mart paid $8.50 per hour and make up the largest portion of individuals who file suit for unpaid, forced overtime. Since most of the people can't afford to pay the average $180 every 2 weeks for insurance, many of their kids end up getting state-funded healthcare. Wal-Mart employees’ kids were the largest recipients of Peachcare here in Georgia last year. Due in large part to the closing of businesses, community leaders desperately offered tax-breaks and incentives to Wal-Mart to build stores to help sustain the tax base. So not only are you paying for Wal-Mart's employee healthcare, you are paying for the construction of their stores.

So what does this mean to you? Every business that closes due to Wal-Mart's unfair business practices costs us lost customers and unpaid bills. It causes layoffs of our brothers and sisters. There is a big difference between a job and a good job. It costs us higher local taxes. Our local legislators have to make the taxes from those of us who make good wages in good jobs stretch to cover those who barely make ends meet working for Wal-Mart.

CWA lobbied extensively against the unfair CLEC regulations that allowed our competitors access to our lines below cost because good Union jobs were lost in the name of "competition." Now I urge you to lobby with your wallet to help save all our jobs. Make an effort to shop in your local small businesses when you can afford it. As easy as it is to one-stop shop in a super center will make it that much harder when you have to walk the length of that store working there in your golden years. Saving a few dollars with that smiling Wal-Mart face so you can put your kids through college doesn't make much sense if they don't have anywhere to work when they get a degree.

What Do Workers Want? Posted 12-16-04 by Charlie Key

For many years American unions set the standards for all US employers and employees. Some standards were set by union contract ie; Health Insurance and retirement, some standards were set by legislation that unions supported ie; Occupational Safety, and Health Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Fair Labor Standards Act. When unions represented over 35% of private employees, companies that did not want to be unionized tried to meet the standards established in union contracts provided competitive wages and benefits for their employees. Until the demise of unionized Eastern Airlines, Delta Airlines had a standard to meet to keep their non union workforce. In those days Delta was a pretty good place to work. Ask the Delta employees today how their working conditions, benefits and wages are.

With union density sliding below 10% of the private sector work force companies such as Wal-Mart now set the standards for wages, working conditions and benefits for workers way beyond the Wally Worlds and Sam’s Clubs. The Walmartzation of the economy (generally meaning jobs with low wages and benefits and the elimination of small local businesses) is getting to be a familiar term among people discussing the future of work and the economy.

For the past 10 years the AFL-CIO under the leadership of John Sweeny has encourage the affiliated unions to spend more money and devote more resources to organizing. Most unions have responded and today more organizing efforts are under way. Additionally labor and the AFL-CIO are undergoing serious introspection. Currently dozens of proposals are being floated for the major overhaul of the labor movement. Each International Union, State Federations and Central Labor Councils are being encouraged to weigh in on the subject of reorganization. Two groups that are furthest from this discussion are the two groups that have the most to gain or loose if the wrong approach is taken. Those two groups are current union members and non members. Each should be asked, “What do workers want, from their jobs and from organizations that represent workers?” Until these questions are asked and answered no change is going to be the right change unless it is by accident.

Many of us in leadership positions think we know that answer. I used to be sure I knew because I was once a non union worker and I was a rank and file member. Over the years that I have been a full time union officer I held to the belief that I still had the answers. Many other good, even great union leaders hold firmly to that belief. I humbly submit that at least some if not a lot of us are wrong. If we are not, why has the increased organizing effort not paid off more? Sure it’s hard to organize the unorganized when workers are afraid for their jobs. We often blame the weakening of the National Labor Relations Act and that has had an impact. We say 46 million US Workers would join unions if they could do so with out fear of discharge or retaliation. Maybe that is true. But the old AFL unions organized millions of workers before the advent of the National Labor Relations Act. Union organizers could make no promise of job protection during the organizing efforts or even afterward. It was only after the signing of a contract that some protections existed.

So, what is the difference today? What was the message that appealed to masses of workers then that gave them the courage to defy their bosses? What message will appeal to today’s workers to give them similar hope and courage? I believe the one thing we must do is develop a message of hope of a grand but realistic (no I don’t think those two are mutually exclusive) vision for what an organized U. S. economy would look like for workers and employers.

All the current proposals I have read have one flaw, they address only structural change. It’s like having a rundown house in an undesirable neighborhood. You can fix the house up and even make it a mini fortress so that you can be safe in side but your house still will not be attractive to a lot of buyers when you put it on the market because no one really wants to live there.

So, help me out her folks, what do working men and women (Union and Non Union) want; from their organizations and from their employers?

This country used to value government, business and labor. They all worked together while warily keeping an eye on each other. Neither of the three could make much of a power grab. Then in 1982 Big Business and Big Government reamed up on labor to reduce labor’s clout and influence. Reagan busted the air traffic controllers and Lorenzo and others sat about busting private sector unions with striker replacements and aggressively opposing organizing efforts. Then with the election of George Bush, the man who proudly proclaimed that a room full of rich fat cats was his base, the business community sat about its full scale attack on government. What could not be changed by legislation was changed by Executive. And when big business realized that they couldn’t change some things either way a new plan was developed.

Conservatives are supposed to be the balanced budget folks while “liberals” are supposed to be the tax and spend folks. So why are conservatives so silent about the huge current Federal deficit?

I believe conservatives have adopted a new strategy and four more years of George Bush and soaring deficits will help them achieve what they have always dreamed of’ a small powerless federal government who’s only mission will be National Defense. One conservative stated that his dream was of a Government so small that it could be drowned in a bathtub. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, OSHA, EPA, FDA, FAA, FLSA, the Labor Department, the Department of Education, the NEA, Amtrak, the Postal Service can all be abolished or privatized if the Federal Government is broke. Lawmakers that wouldn’t dream of voting to cut the above programs will have no choice in the future. It will be those programs or Federal bankruptcy.

Business will no longer fret about excessive government regulation. Even if the laws and regulations are still there the money for enforcement won’t be.

The results of all this is corporations will be the real governing authority in our country. They will decide the quality of your water, the cleanliness of the air and the quality of your food products and your job. Gone will be such pesky requirements as minimum wage, forty hour work weeks, reducing emissions into the air and effluents into the streams.

Our country without a strong federal government to moderate the influence of giant corporations will be a country vastly different from the country we know to day.

That’s the way I see it. What’s your opinion? Email me at cekey@bellsouth.net

Gas prices are soaring past $ 2.00 per gallon on their way, according to some economist, to $3.00 per gallon. Where's the outrage? Why are there not demonstrations in front of the big oil companies headquarters? In the last 14 days the price of gas has risen 14 cents. If the Federal or state government had proposed a 10 cent or even a five cent tax on gas people would be raising hell about big government. But big oil has imposed at least a $.70 per gallon tax on gas this year and not a damn peep.

This is one of the largest and most obvious redistribution of income in our nations history. But this redistribution is from the working class to the upper class, so no howls of social engineering here. But the truth is this is social engineering of the worst kind. It is being done to the many for the benefit of the few.

The price per barrel of oil is no where near record prices so why should the price per gallon of gas? Economist say it "may be" in short supply as summer approaches. It maybe but it doesn't cost any more to produce it, definitely not 70 cents per gallon. How much of the President's $200,000,000 war chest is coming out of that 70 cents per gallon?

Get big oil out of our pockets! Get informed about the candidates that are running for office and support and vote for those that are not bought and paid for by the oil cartels. Back to Index

Posted 2-26-04 by Charlie Key in response to an column by Thomas Freidman in the Atlanta Journal Constitution wherein he asserted that sending jobs to India is good for America.

After visiting Bangalore, India Thomas Friedman has decided that exporting jobs to India is good for America. He said that in the office of 24/7 (a call Center for US firms providing technical support) that the software was from Microsoft, the computers from Compaq, the phone lines from Lucent, the air conditioner was from Carrier and the bottled water was from Coke. He also noted that 90 percent of the shares of 24/7 are owned by US Investors.

If Mr.. Friedman had looked beyond the nameplates he would probably have found made in Mexico, Malaysia, Japan and or other nations. I doubt seriously he would have seen made in the USA on any item particularly not the Coke bottled water and much of the development of the Microsoft software probably occurred right there in India.

He note that the COO of an Indian Company and a number of his coworkers were wearing American Branded Clothing. He quoted the COO as saying, "It's unfair that you want all your products marketed globally, but you don't want any jobs to go." The jobs for making those American branded clothing have already gone beyond the borders of the USA. Levi's, that American icon of macho clothing recently closed it's last American plant. Ray Marshall former Secretary of Labor once said, "The American Worker can never win a wage cutting war and wouldn't want to." The problem with all this outsourcing is this unrelenting search for the lowest possible wages. Freidman noted that the work at one company had been moved from America to Japan to the Philippines to Korea, to Hong Kong, to Taiwan and then India in search of ever lower wages. Economics lesson 101, low paid workers are not free spending consumers. Maybe Mr.. Freidman should have visited some of those workers homes instead of just business offices.

Friedman talks of the dollar value of US exports to India. He did not mention the dollar value of Indian exports to the US or the dollars going from the US to India to pay for services. Economics Lesson 102, the budget deficit and the trade deficit are related. They will always move in the same direction.

It may have bee true when the CEO of General Motors stated in the 1950's that what was good for GM was good for America. In those days if it had a GM Nameplate it was "Made In The USA". Today what's good for USA Corporate names is not necessarily good for the US economy especially not the American worker.

If ever American citizen was also a substantial owner of stocks of foreign corporations then this might be good news. It was with great dismay that I realized several years ago that any bad news for working Americans tends to be good news for the stock market.

I would encourage the Atlanta Journal Constitution and all other American papers to immediately outsource all your columns to lower wage workers in India and other countries. You could save money and it would be good for Thomas Friedman. He probably owns huge buckets of stock. Of course the AJC is already headed in the right direction. Just last week you had an editorial written by Gautam Adhikari a former editor of the "Times of India". His editorial also said that," Outsourcing was not a threat to the U.S. Economy". It was well written and wrong just like Freidman but he probably writes for much less. Congratulations AJC on being on the cutting edge of future outsourcing.

Three letters and opinion pieces in the Atlanta Journal Constitution over a two day period regarding the economy compelled me to write the following

The writer of “Outsourcing of white collar jobs should be a campaign issue” was correct in saying outsourcing should be a campaign issue. He also correctly pointed out the bleak future for many American Workers. The writer that responded saying “This is how free trade works. It is what makes our country great.” is so wrong. It was trade unions, decent wages, a large middle class with steady income and “fair” trade that made this country great. This foolish rush toward free trade and ever lower and lower wages will destroy this country and the middle class.

We were told in the last decade that the US was becoming a Service economy and that was just a transition like the transition from an agriculture economy to an industrial economy. That is not a reasonable comparison because both agriculture and industrial economies are production economies. A service is a consumption based economy. But even if the change was comparable, now even the service jobs are leaving the Country. If we are to maintain our position as the greatest nation we must maintain an economy where it is possible to maintain a large middle income population.

Then there was the article, “Materialism, not necessity, gave birth to dual income families”. The writer completely ignored current events and twisted and tortured historical statistics to try to make a point.

He stated the current value of each job in this country is higher today than it was in 1970. The only way that can possibly be true is if you include the rapidly escalating Executive incomes. (They are or were rising a hundred times faster than workers wages) It definitely would not be true if you just compare service wages, construction wages and manufacturing wages of the 1970s to today’s wages in those same sectors. In 1970 I made about $6.00 per hour as a union plumber. My new pickup truck cost much less than $ 3,000 and a gallon of gas cost about 30 cents. In 1970 I bought a house for $ 21,000. Today that same house will sale for $ 140,000 a comparable new home would be even more. If wages had kept up with the cost of automobiles and houses union plumbers would now be making $42 to 60 to per hour. Union plumber’s wages have almost kept up with the price of gasoline. The same would be true for the wages of the men and women that manufacture the automobiles. This is only three examples there are hundreds of others including grocery cost where wages have not kept up with inflation.

The writer must have based his vision of the single wage earner on “Ozzie and Harriet” and “Leave it to Beaver”. Today a single wage earner in one of the “New Economy” service jobs cannot provide housing and food for a family. Sure there are some wage and salary earners out there that do not need the two incomes to survive. But is surviving or “getting by “all a working family should expect? I personally don’t know any working families that own a plasma TV. Of course some may be able to do without all those electronic gizmos but then what’s going to fuel all this “free trade”?